Obesity is not a lifestyle. Lifestyle choices may contribute to obesity, but, don't conflate cause and effect. It is a discrete condition with a distinct definition and well-researched costs.

Do you want to have a semantic argument about what word we ought to use?

I mean, I am okay with "thingamajig that we ought to get to looking at because it has some pretty negative health outcomes which increase net costs," but, that's rather large.

If labeling obesity a disease leads to funding for research into reversing the trend, then, I am all for that.

"Put down the fork" sounds good, but, has not worked, and I see no reason why it will suddenly begin to. But, then, I also do not tell people who are depressed, or, schizophrenic, to "just get over it" and "act normal."

Originally Posted by Let'sRide

A lifestyle.

When someone has lung cancer or cirrhosis, cells in their body have a different characteristic, indicating a disease.

How are obese people different from healthy people, other than just being in poor health?

They're curable by simply not drinking alcohol, not exposing oneself to smoke, etc. Of course.

Since I suspect you knew that before responding, is there a particular point you are making?

I just cannot understand why you believe that labeling obesity a disease has anything to do with "victimhood promotion." We largely blame smokers for their lung cancer, drinkers for their cirrhosis, right? But, we also research ways to help reverse these problems.

And, we've made big progress. The smoking rate is way down, and, we can reverse lung cancer if caught early. We have medicine to help quitting.

As those diseases cause less harm, what have we done to help reverse obesity? Told people to, you know, not do it?

They're curable by simply not drinking alcohol, not exposing oneself to smoke, etc. Of course.

Since I suspect you knew that before responding, is there a particular point you are making?

I just cannot understand why you believe that labeling obesity a disease has anything to do with "victimhood promotion." We largely blame smokers for their lung cancer, drinkers for their cirrhosis, right? But, we also research ways to help reverse these problems.

And, we've made big progress. The smoking rate is way down, and, we can reverse lung cancer if caught early. We have medicine to help quitting.

As those diseases cause less harm, what have we done to help reverse obesity? Told people to, you know, not do it?

come on Arg, you know it's easier to blindly rant than to think critically...

How about the repair of injuries sustained in inherently dangerous activities, like, say, mountain biking?

There was an article of this subject a few years ago in The Wall Street Journal. The bottom line was that insurers would rather pay to patch up a physically active person than have that person become inactive and subject to the numerous physical maladies that come from being inactive. Thus, there is a benefit, from a health insurer's perspective, that comes from insureds engaging in physical activity even if it has some danger component. There is no benefit to health insurers from people eating too much.

I believe I read that article , mark,
or one like it. it makes a good point , and I am still curious about sauron's response - both activities involve choices, though I am confident most here, yours truly included , view the two differently

but, at least so long as we have mostly private insurance, covering expenses related to the ongoing treatment of care related to obesity , like diabetes and blood pressure medication, may be more palatable than the costs if those treatments are neglected , like amputations .

I am curious - most insurance carriers will cover lung cancer treatments, even for smokers , will they not ?

I believe I read that article , mark,
or one like it. it makes a good point , and I am still curious about sauron's response - both activities involve choices, though I am confident most here, yours truly included , view the two differently

but, at least so long as we have mostly private insurance, covering expenses related to the ongoing treatment of care related to obesity , like diabetes and blood pressure medication, may be more palatable than the costs if those treatments are neglected , like amputations .

I am curious - most insurance carriers will cover lung cancer treatments, even for smokers , will they not ?

they will..

we are however seeing a vast increase in prevention programs sponsored by health insurance companies and employer incentives (e.g., Kaiser...the whole "thrive" model)...free preventative screenings and services....in attempt to lower the insurance premiums and create a healthier workforce. labeling obesity as a disease is a brilliant move by the AMA (if it even happened, since the OP doesn't seem to believe in links)....and long overdue. It opens the doors to further prevention services, public outreach, education, screenings, earlier treatments/interventions, etc.

Obesity and lung cancer share one thing in common, 90% of the cases are due to behaviors that people adopt. (overeating+lack of exercise and smoking)

Where the two diverge is that when most stop over eating and get appropriate exercise they can slow, stop or reverse obesity. The same cannot be said for the effect of stopping smoking on lung cancer.

While not obese, I am heavier than I like, or should be. I can tell you that it is 100% on me. If I fixed my diet, I could be where I want in a month. Perhaps my disease is being able to resist everything except temptation.

It appears to have been almost absent in traditional Asian populations.

I suspect most of the folks here ranting about how the obese only have themselves to blame aren't eating a heart-healthy diet high in soluble fiber, soy protein, throw in some plant sterols for good measure, little to no animal protein/fat, and are quite lean.

Obesity and lung cancer share one thing in common, 90% of the cases are due to behaviors that people adopt. (overeating+lack of excercise and smoking)

Where the two diverge is that when most stop over eating and get approprate excercise they can slow, stop or reverse obesity. The same cannot be said for the effect of stopping smoking on lung cancer.

Not quite. No you can't reverse cancer by stopping smoking if you already have it. But many of smokings affects can be reversed or improved.

Is the Damage from Smoking Permanent? - TIME
A: When you quit smoking, the inflammation in the airways goes down. The little hair-like projections in the airways that we call cilia — which are paralyzed by smoke — begin to work again. So the lungs will get better in weeks to months. Breathing will get better. Exercise capacity will get better. Paradoxically, people find that they cough a little more right after they stop smoking, but that's natural. That's the lungs cleaning themselves out.

But if you've been smoking a long time and have developed COPD [(or, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)], which includes chronic bronchitis or emphysema, the lungs never totally heal. Chronic bronchitis is an inflammation of the airway. Some of that inflammation can be reversed. But if the inflammation has led to scarring of the walls of the airway, some of that cannot. Emphysema is a disease in which the walls of the fine air sacs of the lung — the place where the lung does its business of exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide — break down. So tiny little air sacs become bigger ones — and they're less efficient in transporting oxygen. The lung can't grow new walls for these air sacs. The lung loses tiny blood vessels and can't grow new ones. So that's permanent.

[When it comes to cancer], we calculate that the risk for lung cancer probably returns to that of a nonsmoker somewhere between 10 and 15 years after smoking cessation. (We have less data on the [other smoking-related cancers].) But the risk that people have for smoking-related diseases is directly related to the total number of cigarettes they've smoked in their life. We measure that with something we call "pack-years": that's the average number of packs per day multiplied by the number of years they've smoked. The greater the pack-years, the greater the risk. When you're getting up around 50 pack-years and beyond, that's a lot. If people have a lot of pack-years, the risk of, say, lung cancer never goes back down to [the risk of a non-smoker].